S&asTOKaS^ 

EX  L1BR.IS 


F.  M.  Circ.  1.  Issued.  January  7, 1916. 

United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Office  of  the  Secretary. 

Contribution  from  the  Office  of  Farm  Management, 
W.  J.  SPILLMAN,  Chief. 


Suggestions 

Concerning  Checking  and  Tabulating 
Farm  Management  Survey  Data. 


A  DESK  MANUAL  FOR 
INVESTIGATORS. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1916. 


F.  M.  Circ.  1.  Issued  January  7, 1918. 

United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Office  of  the  Secretary. 

Contribution  from  the  Office  of  Farm  Management, 
W.  J.  SPILLMAN,  Chief. 


Suggestions 

Concerning  Checking  and  Tabulating 
Farm  Management  Survey  Data. 


A  DSSK  MANUAL  I?OR 
INVESTIGATORS. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1910. 


F.  M.  Circ.  1. 

CHECKING  AND  TABULATING  FARM  MANAGE- 
MENT SURVEY  DATA. 

The  value  of  the  farm  management  survey  as  a  means  of  analyz- 
ing the  agriculture  of  a  locality  is  now  quite  generally  recognized. 
Such  an  analysis  reveals  both  the  points  of  excellence  and  the 
defects  of  the  local  farming.  The  difficulties  connected  with  work 
of  this  character  and  the  very  general  interest  in  it  render  it  desira- 
ble to  set  forth  the  methods  required  for  satisfactory  work.  So  far 
as  may  be  at  the  present  time,  this  is  done  in  the  following  pages. 
It  is  assumed  that  the  reader  is  familiar  with  the  methods  of  gather- 
ing such  data  in  the  field.  It  is  the  use  of  the  data  after  it  is  col- 
lected that  is  here  considered.  The  subject  will  be  briefly  treated 
from  the  following  standpoints: 

1.  Checking  the  office  sheets. 

2.  Preliminary  calculations. 

3.  Principles  of  tabulation. 

4.  Classification  of  farms  by  tenure. 

5.  Suggested  tables. 

CHECKING  SURVEY  RECORDS. 

Survey  records  are  taken  on  field  blanks  and  later  transferred  to 
the  survey  record  sheet,  or  office  blank.  These  transfers  should  be 
made  daily  as  the  collecting  of  the  data  progresses.  They  should 
then  be  checked  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions  below,  and 
where  inconsistency  or  incompleteness  is  found,  another  visit 
should  be  made  to  the  farm.  Where  a  survey  party  consists  of  sev- 
eral men,  one  member  should  be  expert  in  checking  records.  At 
the  close  of  each  day's  work  each  field  man  transfers  his  records 
from  the  field  blanks  to  the  office  blanks.  The  next  day  the  office 
man  checks  these  records  while  the  field  men  are  taking  new  records. 
In  case  the  checking  shows  inconsistency  or  lack  of  necessary  data, 

(3) 


the  same  field  man  who  took  the  original  record  goes  back  to  the 
farmer  concerned  and  gets  the  additional  data. 

A  survey  record  generally  consists  of  estimates  made  by  the 
farmer  as  to  the  details  of  his  business  for  the  past  year.  Most 
farmers  have  the  details  of  their  business  sufficiently  in  mind  to 
give  a  satisfactory,  record,  but  in  some  cases  it  requires  great  skill 
on  the  part  of  the  field  man  in  reducing  his  questions  to  the  terms  in 
which  the  farmer  thinks  in  order  to  get  trustworthy  information. 

If  a  record  is  grossly  inaccurate  this  fact  is  easily  detected  by  the 
system  of  checking  outlined  below.  Even  if  it  is  only  slightly 
inaccurate  this  fact  will  usually  show  because  of  the  numerous 
checks  in  the  records  themselves.  The  following  is  an  outline  of 
the  work  to  be  done  in  checking  a  record : 

1.  Compare  the  office  sheet  with  the  field  blanks  to  see  if  all  the 
transfers  have  been  correctly  made. 

2.  See  if  the  total  acres  of  crops,  pastures,  woodland,  etc..  equals 
the  total  farm  area. 

3.  Examine  the  yields  of  the  crops  per  acre  to  see  if  they  are 
reasonable  when  compared  with  the  normal  for  the  year  and 
locality.     (See  next  paragraph.) 

4.  Examine  the  sales  to  see  if  prices  and  amounts  sold  are  rea- 
sonable.   If  the  price  is  unusual,  there  should  be  an  explanation 
on  the  field  sheet.    In  general,  any  unusual  item  on  a  field  blank 
should  be  accompanied  by  a  note  of  explanation,  to  show  it  is  not 
merely  an  error] 

.  5.  Balancing  the  live  stock.  Certain  inconsistencies  in  the  live- 
stock record  may  be  detected  as  follows: 

Cows. — If  the  number  of  cows  on  hand  at  the  first  inventory  be 
added  to  the  purchases  and  the  sum  be  subtracted  from  the  sum 
of  the  second  inventory  plus  sales,  plus  number  died,  the  differ- 
ence will  show  the  number  of  heifers  added  to  the  herd  during  the 
year.  Suppose  this  difference  is  six  and  that  in  the  first  inventory 
only  four  heifers  were  shown  and  that  one  heifer  was  purchased. 
This  shows  a  mistake  of  at  least  one  either  in  the  number  of  cows 
or  in  the  number  of  heifers.  The  number  of  heifers  that  became 
cows  during  the  year  might  be  zero  in  such  a  case,  no  matter  how 
many  heifers  were  on  hand  the  first  of  the  year.  The  point  is:  If 
the  number  of  heifers  added  to  the  herd  during  the  year,  as  deter- 
mined from  the  number  of  cows,  is  greater  than  the  total  number 


of  heifers  on  hand  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  plus  the  number  of 
heifers  purchased,  the  record  must  be  wrong. 

Heifers. — The  record  of  the  heifers  may  be  checked  with  that  of 
the  calves  in  a  similar  manner.  In  checking  the  record  of  the  cows 
we  find  the  number  of  heifers  that  became  cows  during  the  year. 
Add  together  the  number  of  heifers  in  the  second  inventory,  the 
number  sold,  the  number  that  died,  and  the  number  that  became 
cows;  from  this  sum  subtract  the  number  in  the  first  inventory  plus 
the  number  purchased;  the  difference  will  be  the  number  of  calves 
that  passed  into  the  heifer  class  during  the  year.  This  number 
must  not  exceed  the  number  of  calves  at  the  first  inventory  plus 
the  number  purchased. 

Calves. — To  find  the  number  of  calves  born,  add  together  the 
number  at  the  second  inventory,  the  number  sold,  the  number 
that  died,  and  the  number  that  passed  into  the  heifer  class  (deter- 
mined in  checking  the  heifer  data),  and  the  number  that  passed 
into  the  steer  class,  and  subtract  the  number  at  the  first  inventory 
and  the  number  bought.  The  number  born  should  be  consistent 
with  the  number  of  cows  on  hand. 

Horses. — In  the  case  of  horses,  add  together  the  number  at  the 
second  inventory,  the  number  sold,  and  the  number  that  died. 
Subtract  from  this  the  number  at  the  first  inventory  plus  the  num- 
ber purchased.  The  difference,  if  any,  must  be  made  up  by  colts 
passing  from  the  colt  class  to  the  horse  class  during  the  year.  If 
this  number  is  greater  than  the  number  of  colts  on  hand  at  the 
first  inventory  plus  the  number  purchased,  the  record  is  wrong. 

6.  See  if  the  amount  of  stock  products  sold  is  consistent  with 
the  number  of  animals  on  hand.     If  the  receipts  per  cow  figure 
out  over  $100  each,  note  whether  the  cows  are  high  priced.    They 
should  be  with  such  a  product.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  receipts 
per  cow  are  very  low,  the  cows  should  be  low  priced.    If  the  fig- 
ures indicate  a  very  high  yield  of  wool  per  sheep,  the  price  of 
sheep  should  be  correspondingly  high,  and  vice  versa.    If  a  stal- 
lion is  shown  in  the  inventory,  look  for  breeding  fees  in  the  mis- 
cellaneous receipts.     If  animals  died  or  were  butchered,  look  for 
receipts  from  hides  in  miscellaneous  receipts. 

7.  Examine  the  list  of  current  expenses  for  the  following  points: 
Is  the  amount  of  labor,  repairs,  etc.,  consistent  with  the  area  of 
crops,  the  number  of  stock  kept,  etc.?    If  colts  are  reported  and 
no  stallion  kept,  there  should  be  an  item  for  breeding  fees  in  cmr 
rent  expenses.    If  the  farm  has  no  bull,  there  should  be  an  item 
for  breeding  fees  for  calves  in  current  expenses.    If  the  farmer 


6 

raises  grain,  but  has  no  drill,  binder,  etc.,  there  should  be  an  item 
for  machinery  hire.  If  truck  crops  or  fruit  are  sold,  there  should 
be  an  expense  for  barrels,  bags,  crates,  etc.  If  the  farmer  retails 
milk,  fruit,  truck,  etc.,  there  should  be  a  relatively  large  equip- 
ment in  horses,  wagons,  etc.,  and  a  larger  labor  bill  than  on  a 
similar  farm  which  sells  wholesale.  If  an  engine  is  included  in 
the  list  of  machinery,  there  should  be  items  for  fuel  and  oil.  If 
there  is  grain  to  thrash,  clover  to  hull,  etc.,  there  should  be  an 
item  for  fuel  and  thrashing.  If  hay  is  sold,  look  for  baling  charges. 
An  unusually  large  labor  bill  might  be  explained  by  machine  work 
done  for  others  or  other  outside  work;  also,  by  the  construction  of 
buildings,  of  laying  tile  drains,  or  building  of  fences,  etc. 

If  the  area  of  pasture  is  large  and  the  live-stock  inventory  shows 
few  animals  on  the  place,  look  for  receipts  from  pasture  under 
miscellaneous  receipts. 

8.  See  if  the  rate  of  depreciation  on  buildings  is  consistent  with 
the  character  of  the  buildings,  as  judged  by  their  value. 

9.  Where  new  buildings  or  other  improvements  are  constructed 
during  the  year  care  should  be  taken  to  see  that  the  labor  used  in 
their  construction  is  not  included  in  the  ordinary  labor  to  perform 
the  farm  work. 

10.  Feed  and  supply  inventory:  The  amount  of  feed  on  hand  at 
the  first  inventory,  plus  the  amount  raised  and  the  amount  bought, 
less  the  amount  on  hand  at  the  second  inventory,  should  be  con- 
sistent with  the  live  stock  kept  to  consume  this  feed.    If  there  is 
no  hay  or  corn  in  the  first  inventory,  then  some  must  be  bought  and 
should  show  in  expenses.    If  the  feed  on  hand  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year  is  small,  especially  on  dairy  farms,  some  must  be  bought. 
If  there  is  relatively  a  large  amount  on  hand  at  the  first  inventory, 
the  amount  bought  should  be  small. 

In  the  case  of  seed  for  field  crops,  such  as  oats,  if  the  amount  for 
this  year's  seeding  is  included  in  the  first  inventory  then  the 
record  should  not  show  seed  bought  for  the  same  crop  during  the 
year;  or  if  it  is  so  included  it  should  not  be  charged  as  an  expense, 
for  this  would  make  a  double  charge  for  this  item.  When  a  record 
does  account  for  the  item  in  both  the  first  inventory  and  the 
expenses,  the  item  of  expense  is  usually  found  to  be  the  amount  the 
farmer  has  purchased  for  the  following  year's  seeding,  which  item 


should  be  accounted  for  in  the  second  inventory,  otherwise  it 
makes  a  double  charge.  It  is  usually  best  to  disregard  the  purchase 
item  altogether. 

The  difference  between  wheat  sold,  plus  wheat  on  hand  at  the 
second  inventory,  and  the  wheat  produced,  plus  wheat  on  hand  at 
the  first  inventory,  should  be  a  reasonable  amount  for  seed  and 
bread. 

11.  See  if  the  price  per  acre  of  real  estate  is  consistent  with  that 
of  other  farms  in  the  locality. 

12.  On  small  farms  the  estimated  value  of  the  farmer's  labor,  if 
very  small,  would  call  for  big  labor  expense;  but  if  large,  would 
call  for  small  labor  expense. 

13.  If  a  farmer  has  owned  a  farm  a  long  time  and  has  considerable 
mortgage,  this  is  inconsistent  with  a  high  labor  income;  but  a  new 
farmer  with  a  big  mortgage  may  have  a  good  labor  income.    If  the 
farmer  bega;n  as  a  laborer,  then  became  a  tenant,  then  an  owner, 
and  now  has  no  mortgage,  this  is  proof  he  has  made  good  labor 
incomes  in  the  past  and  should  do  so  now  if  conditions  on  his  farm 
are  normal. 

14.  All  calculations  in  a  record  should  be  checked  to  see  that 
no  errors  have  crept  in.    Thus,  if  the  original  data  consisted  of 
area  and  total  quantity  produced,  all  yields  of  crops  are  calculated. 
If  the  original  data  consisted  of  area  and  yield  per  acre,  the  total 
production  is  calculated.    All  these  calculations  should  be  checked 
to  see  that  they  are  accurate.    All  additions  and  subtractions 
should  be  gone  over  for  the  same  purpose. 

15.  Receipts  from  sources  having  no  relation  to  the  farm  busi- 
ness should  not  be  included  in  the  farm  receipts;  but  when  part  of 
the  labor  or  equipment  belonging  strictly  to  the  farm  is  used 
temporarily  outside  the  farm,  especially  in  the  case  of  exchange 
labor,  the  receipts  for  such  use  are  a  part  of  the  business.    Equip- 
ment used  continuously  in  other  business  except  for  short  periods 
should  not  be  included  in  the  farm  business,  and  when  used  on 
the  farm  the  value  for  such  use  should  be  set  down  as  an  expense. 

16.  Records  for  individual  farms  which  the  comparisons  sug- 
gested above  show  to  be  distinctly  in  error  must  either  be  corrected 
by  securing  more  accurate  data  or  they  must  be  discarded.    It  is 
essential  that  a  survey  party  should  transfer  the  field  record  of  each 


8 

farm  to  the  office  record  sheet  while  the  survey  is  in  progress,  so 
that  additional  data  may  be  secured  from  any  farm  for  which  the 
record  is  incomplete  or  inaccurate. 

Before  commencing  the  tabulation  of  survey  data  the  records 
should  be  rechecked  by  a  competent  person. 

PRELIMINARY  CALCULATIONS. 

Before  beginning  the  tabulation  of  the  data  from  a  farm  man- 
agement survey  it  is  necessary  to  make  calculations  to  obtain  all 
the  figures  required  in  the  tabulations.  These  calculations  should 
be  made,  and  the  results  recorded  on  each  farm  record  sheet;  or 
better,  on  a  factor  sheet  prepared  especially  for  the  purpose.  The 
calculations  usually  required  for  each  farm  are  as  follows: 

1.  Value  of  real  estate  per  acre. 

2.  Depreciation,    interest,    and    repairs — total    for    buildings, 
fences,  and  machinery,  per  farm  and  per  crop  acre. 

3.  Per  cent  of  capital  invested  in  each  of  the  following  factors 
of  production:  Land,  dwelling,  other  buildings,  implements  and 
machinery,  live  stock,  feed  and  supplies,  and  cash  to  run  the  farm. 

4.  Working  capital,  in  dollars,  and  in  per  cent  of  total  capital. 
(The  working  capital  consists  of  the  investment  in  implements 
and  machinery,  live  stock,  feed  and  supplies,  and  cash  to  run  the 
farm.) 

5.  Working  capital  per  acre  of  crops.    (If  the  survey  is  in  a 
region  where  pasture  land  is  of  prime  importance  and  where  the 
percentage  of  pasture  land  on  the  different  farms  varies  widely, 
the  pasture  area  should  be  reduced  to  its  equivalent  crop  area  and 
added  to  the  crop  area,  making  the  crop  area  equivalent  of  the  farm, 
and  this  calculation  should  be  based  on  crop  area  equivalent.    See 
method  of  determining  crop  area  equivalent  under  calculation 
No.  55b.) 

6.  Pasture  area  percentage.    That  is,  the  percentage  the  pasture 
area  is  of  crop  and  pasture  area  combined. 

7.  Percentage  of  total  crop  area  devoted  to  each  crop. 

8.  Crop  index.    This  is  determined  for  an  individual  farm  as 
follows:  Divide  the  quantity  of  each  field  crop  produced  on  the 
farm  by  the  average  yield  of  that  crop  for  all  the  farms  in  the  sur- 


9 

vey;  add  the  quotients  together;  divide  by  the  total  area  of  field 
crops  on  the  farm  in  question. 

9.  Number  of  animals  of  each  kind.    This  should  be  the  average 
number  of  each  kind  of  stock  on  hand  at  different  times  during  the 
year.     In  the  case  of  cows,  horses,  flocks  of  sheep,  sows,  and  poul- 
try the  average  of  the  first  and  second  inventory  is  usually  suffi- 
cient, except  when  some  are  raised  and  sold  between  dates  of 
inventories.     In  the  case  of  feeder  steers  or  sheep  the  actual  num- 
ber fed  should  be  given.    When  calculating  the  number  of  animal 
units  for  pigs  that  are  raised  and  sold  during  the  year,  five  such 
animals  are  usually  considered  an  animal  unit  when  the  value 
indicates  they  had  reached  some  200  pounds  or  more  per  head  in 
weight.     If  sold  when  the  weight  is  much  less  than  200  pounds, 
10  such  animals  are  counted  an  animal  unit. 

10.  Number  of  animal  units  for  each  kind  of  stock.    An  animal 
unit  is  the  equivalent,  from  the  standpoint  of  feed  required,  of  a 
full-grown  cow  or  horse.     It  is  customary  to  count  as  an  animal 
unit  2  head  of  young  cattle  or  colts,  5  hogs,  10  pigs,  7  sheep,  14 
lambs,  or  100  poultry.     In  the  case  of  feeder  steers  and  feeder 
sheep  the  number  of  animal  units  calculated  should  be  reduced  in 
proportion  to  the  time  on  feed  as  compared  with  the  full  year. 
Thus,  30  steers  on  hand  six  months  will  equal  15  animal  units  for 
the  year. 

11.  Percentage  of  animal  units  of  each  class.    That  is,  divide 
the  number  of  animal  units  of  each  class  by  the  total  number  of 
animal  units  on  the  farm. 

12.  Crop  area  and  pasture  area  per  animal  unit.     First,  includ- 
ing work  horses;  second,  excluding  work  horses. 

13.  Crop  area  and  pasture  area  per  cow.     This  calculation  is 
important  in  dairy  regions. 

14.  Total  net  receipts  from  each  kind  of  animals  except  work 
horses. 

15.  Total  net  receipts  from  all  kinds  of  animals  except  work 
horses. 

16.  Total  net  receipts  per  animal  unit  for  each  kind  of  animal 
except  work  horses. 

10952—15 2 


10 

17.  Per  cent  of  receipts  from  each  enterprise  for  which  there  is 
a  net  plus  receipt.     (Ignore  enterprises  having  minus  incomes,  as 
these  are  sources  of  expenditures,  not  receipts.) 

18.  Crop  acres  per  man.    (See  calculation  No.  30  for  method  of 
finding  number  of  men.) 

19.  Crop  acres  per  workhorse  (or  mule). 

20.  Cost  of  man  labor  per  crop  acre.    The  cost  of  man  labor  here 
includes  the  value  of  hired  labor,  unpaid  family  labor,  and  the 
labor  of  the  operator. 

21.  Monthly  wages.    To  find  this,  divide  the  total  value  of  man 
labor,  as  determined  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  by  the  total 
months  of  man  labor. 

22.  Number  of  work  horses  per  man. 

23.  Value  of  machinery  per  crop  acre. 

24.  Cost  of  dwelling  per  crop  acre. 

25.  Cost  of  other  buildings  per  crop  acre. 

(In  surveys  including  farms  on  which  pasture  is  very  important, 
the  last  three  calculations  should  be  made  on  the  basis  of  crop  area 
equivalent  instead  of  crop  area.  (See  No.  55-b.)) 

26.  Value  of  dwelling  in  terms  of  net  farm  income. 

27.  Value  of  other  buildings  in  terms  of  net  farm  income. 

28.  Value  of  all  labor  other  than  the  farmer's. 

29.  Value  of  all  labor,  including  the  farmer's. 

30.  Number  of  laborers.    This  is  the  total  months  of  labor 
divided  by  12. 

31.  Productive  work  units,  both  man  and  horse,  on  crops.     (See 
Table  I.) 

32.  Productive  work  units,  both  man  and  horse,  on  live  stock. 
(See  Table  I.) 

33.  Productive  work  units,  both  man  and  horse,  miscellaneous. 
(See  Table  I.) 

34.  Total  productive  man-work  units. 

35.  Total  productive  horse-work  units. 

36.  Percentage  of  productive  man- work  units  on  crops. 

37.  Percentage  of  productive  man- work  units  on  live  stock. 

38.  Percentage  of  productive  man- work  units  on  miscellaneous. 

39.  Percentage  of  productive  horse-work  units  on  crops. 


11 

40.  Percentage  of  productive  horse- work  units  on  live  stock. 

41.  Percentage  of  productive  horse- work  units  on  miscellaneous. 

42.  Productive  work  units  per  man.    This  is  the  total  productive 
man- work  units  divided  by  the  number  of  laborers  as  determined 
in  No.  30. 

43.  Number  of  productive  horse-work  units  per  horse. 

44.  Wages  of  operator  per  productive  work  unit.    This  is  the 
labor  income  divided  by  the  productive  work  units  per  man.    It 
shows  the  operator's  receipts  for  each  productive  work  unit  done 
by  him. 

45.  Labor  income  per  day.    This  is  the  labor  income  divided 
by  300,  it  being  assumed  that  there  are  300  work  days  in  a  year. 

46.  Per  cent  of  income  on  capital,  owner  farms.    First,  without 
deducting  value  of  owner's  labor  from  farm  income;  second, 
making  this  deduction. 

47.  For  tenant  farms,  determine  the  landlord's  percentage  of 
income  on  his  investment  and  the  tenant's  percentage  of  income 
on  his  investment,  if  he  has  any. 

48.  Total  value  of  feed  produced. 

49.  Total  value  of  feed  purchased. 

50.  Total  feed  produced  and  purchased. 

51.  Total  value  of  feed  crops  sold. 

52.  Total  value  of  feed  fed.    This  is  the  sum  of  the  feed  pro- 
duced and  purchased,  and  feed  on  hand  at  the  beginning  of  the 
year,  minus  feed  sold  and  feed  on  hand  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

53.  Value  of  feed  fed  per  animal  unit,  including  horses. 

54.  Value  of  feed  purchased  per  animal  unit,  including  horses. 

55.  Magnitude  of  business.    A  large  number  of  the  tabulations 
which  should  be  made  are  intended  to  bring  out  the  relation  of 
magnitude  of  business  to  other  factors.    The  magnitude  of  the 
farm  business  may  be  measured  in  any  one  of  a  number  of  different 
ways,  depending  upon  the  character  of  the  farms  included  in  the 
tabulations.    Several  of  these  measures  of  magnitude  are  discussed 
in  the  following  paragraphs.    The  investigator  should,  after  care- 
ful consideration  of  the  character  of  his  data,  determine  which  of 
these  measures  will  constitute  the  most  accurate  measure  of  magni- 
tude of  business  and  at  the  same  time  require  the  least  work  in 


12 

calculating,  and  should  then  use  the  measure  thus  determined 
upon  unless  for  some  special  reason  it  is  desirable  to  use  some  other 
measure  in  a  particular  tabulation.  The  following  paragraphs 
state  the  conditions  under  which  each  of  these  measures  may  be 
used: 

a.  Size  of  farm  in  acres.  —  The  size  of  the  farm  in  acres  may  be 
used  where  the  type  of  farming  is  similar  on  all  the  farms,  or  nearly 
all  of  them,  provided  the  proportion  of  land  occupied  by  timber 
and  by  land  devoted  to  pasture  does  not  vary  widely  from  farm 
to  farm.     In  other  words,  in  a  locality  where  the  farms  are  quite 
uniform  in  character,  with  about  the  same  proportion  of  crop  land, 
pasture  land,  and  timber  land,  and  with  similar  intensity  of  live- 
stock enterprises,  the  size  of  the  farm  is  a  satisfactory  measure  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  farm  business.     Where  it  can  be  used  it  is 
by  far  the  simplest  measure;  but  there  are  relatively  few  areas 
where  such  a  measure  is  accurate. 

b.  Crop  area  equivalent.—  Where  the  type  of  farming  is  simi- 
lar on  the  different  farms  but  the  proportion  of  pasture  land  and 
of  woodland  is  highly  variable,  a  very  accurate  measure  of  magni- 
tude of  business  is  the  sum  of  the  crop  area  and  the  crop  area  equiva- 
lent of  the  pasture  area,  which  sum  we  may  call  the  crop  area 
equivalent  of  the  farm.     It  is  applicable  in  all  cases  where  the  type 
of  farming  is  of  approximately  similar  degree  of  intensity  on  the 
different  farms.     In  order  to  reduce  the  pasture  area  to  its  equiva- 
lent crop  area  we  have  the  following  considerations: 

We  may  assume  that  30  pounds  of  dry  hay  per  day  is  the  daily 
ration  for  a  mature  animal  and  that  the  number  of  acres  of  pasture 
required  to  carry  one  mature  animal  during  the  pasture  season 
will  furnish  the  equivalent  of  this  much  hay.  Let  C  represent 
the  acres  of  pasture  required  to  furnish  this  much  feed  daily.  If 
the  pasture  season  is  5  months,  or  150  days,  long  it  must  furnish 
during  the  season  the  equivalent  of  150  times  30  pounds  of  hay, 
which  is  2  1  tons.  Let  T  represent  the  average  yield  of  hay  in  tons 
per  acre  on  the  farm  in  question.  We  then  have  C  acres  of  pasture 
furnishes  the  equivalent  of  2^  tons  of  hay;  C  acres  of  pasture  are 

24-  2 

equivalent  to  qr  acres  of  hay;  1  acre  of  pasture  is  equivalent  to 


acres  of  hay;  P  acres  of  pasture  are  equivalent  to  -^  acres  of  hay, 

where  P  is  the  total  acres  of  pasture  on  the  farm.  Thus,  to  find  the 
number  of  acres  of  hay  to  which  the  pasture  on  the  farm  is  equiva- 
lent, multiply  the  number  of  acres  of  pasture  by  2\  and  divide 
the  product  by  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  pasture  (acres  per 
animal)  multiplied  by  the  average  yield  of  hay  in  tons  per  acre. 


13 

Even  if  it  is  necessary  to  estimate  roughly  the  carrying  capacity 
of  the  pasture,  this  measure  of  magnitude  of  the  farm  business  will 
usually  be  more  accurate  than  merely  the  number  of  acres  in  the 
farm. 

c.  Days  of  productive  labor.— Unless  there  is  a  very  great  dif- 
ference in  the  type  of  farming  on  the  different  farms  to  be  tabulated , 
the  total  number  of  days  of  productive  labor  on  the  farm  will  be  a 
fairly  accurate  measure  of  the  magnitude  of  the  business  conducted 
on  the  farm.     It  is  especially  accurate  where  the  relation  of  the 
capital  invested  to  the  amount  of  labor  required  is  about  the  same 
on  the  different  farms;  but  if  on  some  of  the  farms  there  is  a  very 
large  amount  of  capital  with  relatively  little  labor,  as  is  the  case 
on  live-stock  farms  devoted  largely  to  pasture,  while  on  other  farms 
there  is  an  enormous  amount  of  labor  with  very  little  invested 
capital,  as  is  frequently  the  case  in  fruit  and  truck  growing  prop- 
ositions, this  measure  of  magnitude  becomes  quite  inaccurate. 

d.  Working  capital. — When  the  type  of  farming  is  similar,  the 
total  amount  of  working  capital  is  a  very  good  measure  of  magni- 
tude of  business.     The  working  capital  is  the  sum  of  the  value  of 
the  live  stock,  machinery  and  tools,  feed  and  supplies,  and  cash  to 
run  the  farm.     Its  calculation  has  already  been  provided  for  in 
Preliminary  calculations,  No.  4. 

e.  Cost  of  operation. — The  most  accurate  measure  of  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  farm  business  is  the  cost  of  operation  for  the  year. 
This  consists  of  interest  on  capital,  wages  of  the  operator,  current 
expenses,  decrease  in  feed  and  supplies,  and  depreciation  of  build- 
ings,  fences,   and  equipment.    That  this  is  the  most  accurate 
measure  of  the  magnitude  of  the  business  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
this  sum  is  the  greatest  amount  a  farmer  can  lose  in  any  one  year, 
aside  from  the  destruction  of  property  by  catastrophe.     It  should 
be  calculated  for  every  farm  if  comparisons  involving  factors  de- 
pending on  magnitude  of  business  are  to  be  made  between  groups 
of  farms  of  distinctly  different  degrees  of  intensity.     The  only  case 
in  which  it  fails  is  that  of  a  comparison  between  different  localities 
in  which  the  price  of  real  estate  differs  greatly  although  the  land 
is  similar  in  productiveness;  but  such  cases  do  not  ordinarily  arise 
in  a  single  survey. 

56.  Measuring  the  magnitude  of  individual  enterprises.  It  is 
ordinarily  assumed  that  the  net  receipts  from  an  enterprise  consti- 
tute a  measure  of  its  magnitude.  This  would  be  true  if  the  net 
receipts  from  each  enterprise  were  always  in  proportion  to  the 
expense  of  operation,  but  unfortunately  this  is  not  always  the  case. 
Not  infrequently  a  large  enterprise  produces  a  negative  net  income 
and  small  ones  often  do  likewise.  Since  the  quantity  here  under 


14 

discussion  is  only  to  be  used  in  obtaining  averages,  it  will  seldom 
lead  to  wrong  conclusions  if  these  minus  incomes  be  simply  left 
out  of  consideration.  (See  calculation  17.)  The  difficulty  can  be 
completely  overcome  by  using  the  total  expense  of  conducting 
the  enterprise,  including  interest  on  the  required  capital,  as  the 
measure  of  magnitude.  It  will  seldom  be  practicable  to  do  this; 
the  possible  error  in  the  other  method  is  too  small  to  justify  the  use 
of  this  more  laborious  one  in  ordinary  cases. 

57.  Index  of  diversity.  There  are  several  expressions  which 
may  be  used  for  diversity  of  business.  Each  of  them  should  be 
calculated  for  use  in  different  tabulations. 

a.  In  localities  devoted  quite  largely  to  some  form  of  live-stock 
farming  the  percentage  of  incomes  from  crops  is  one  way  of  express- 
ing diversity.    This  percentage  should  be  calculated. 

In  regions  devoted  largely  to  crop  farming  the  percentage  of 
income  from  live-stock  enterprises  is  similarly  useful,  though 
farming  may  be  quite  diversified  on  the  basis  of  crops  alone,  as, 
in  fact,  it  may  be  also  on  the  basis  of  live  stock.  In  crop-farming 
regions  it  is  well  to  note  the  percentage  of  income  from  live-stock 
enterprises. 

b.  The  number  of  enterprises  producing  more  than  10  per  cent 
of  the  farm  receipts  may  also  be  used  as  a  measure  of  diversity, 
except  in  cases  of  extreme  diversity.    It  is  possible  for  a  highly 
diversified  farm  to  have  no  enterprises  producing  as  much  as  10 
per  cent  of  the  receipts. 

c.  In  some  cases  diversity  has  been  measured  by  giving  the  num- 
ber of  enterprises  producing  given  incomes,  as  $200,  $500,  $1,000, 
etc.    This  method  is  objectionable  in  that  it  does  not  distinguish 
between  size  of  business  and  diversity  of  business.    It  leads  to 
wrong  conclusions  because  it  attributes  to  diversity  effects  due  to 
magnitude  of  business.    The  method  should  never  be  used.    But 
if  the  income  from  each  enterprise  be  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the 
total  receipts  of  the  farm  this  objection  disappears.    "While  it  is  of 
no  value  in  studying  the  relation  of  diversity  to  efficiency  in  farm- 
ing, since  the  expression  for  diversity  is  not  a  definite  figure  which 
can  be  used  in  tabulations,  it  is  a  useful  method  of  presenting  data 
to  the  farmer  in  farm  management  demonstration  work.    A  good 
plan  in  such  work  is  to  classify  the  enterprises  into  groups  producing 
1-10,  10-20,  20-30,  30-40,  40-60,  and  over  60  per  cent  of  the  farm 
receipts.    Two  or  three  enterprises  in  the  four  higher  groups  and 
three  or  four  in  the  two  lower  indicate  a  very  satisfactory  degree  of 
diversity  for  most  localities. 


15 


d.  It  is  possible  to  get  a  definite  figure  to  represent  degree  of 
diversity  by  a  slight  extension  of  the  principle  involved  in  the  last 
method.  When  the  magnitude  of  any  one  enterprise  approaches 
100  per  cent  of  the  magnitude  of  the  farm  business  the  business  is 
approaching  the  status  of  single  enterprise  farming.  Also,  when 
all  the  enterprises  are  equal  in  magnitude  the  number  of  these  enter- 
prises is  a  measure  of  diversity.  The  highest  possible  degree  of 
diversity  consists  of  an  indefinitely  large  number  of  indefinitely 
small  enterprises.  Then  when  any  enterprise  increases  in  mag- 
nitude it  tends  to  reduce  the  degree  of  diversity  of  the  business.  If 
the  magnitude  of  each  enterprise  be  expressed  in  percentage  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  farm  business,  and  if  each  magnitude  be  weighted 
according  to  its  distance  from  zero  magnitude,  then  the  sum  of  these 
weighted  magnitudes  divided  into  unity  will  give  a  definite  figure 
which  is  a  very  accurate  measure  of  diversity,  and  which  is  exceed- 
ingly useful  in  studying  the  effect  of  actual  diversity  on  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  business.  Since  the  magnitude  of  an  enterprise  is 
also  its  distance  from  zero,  the  weighted  magnitudes  above  men- 
tioned are  simply  the  squares  of  the  individual  magnitudes.  Hence 
the  following  simple  rule  for  calculating  the  degree  of  diversity  of 
the  farm  business: 

Diversity  index:  First  express  the  magnitude  of  each  enterprise 
in  percentage  of  the  sum  of  all  these  magnitudes;1  square  each  of 
these  percentages;  find  the  sum  of  these  squares;  then  divide  unity 
by  this  sum. 

All  the  above  calculations  are  easily  made  on  the  slide  rule,  squar- 
ing numbers  by  means  of  the  slide  rule  being  an  especially  easy  and 
rapid  process.  The  percentages  should  be  expressed  decimally 
and  carried  to  the  third  decimal  place.  Thus  15.5  per  cent  should 
be  expressed  as  .155.  The  squares  should  be  carried  to  the  fourth 
decimal  place.  One  decimal  place  is  sufficient  for  the  final  result. 
Example: 


Magnitudes 
of  the 
enterprises. 

The  same 
in 
decimals. 

Squares. 

$1.050 
750 
25 
875 
215 
45 

0.354 
.253 
.008 
.297 
.073 
.015 

0.1253 
.0640 
.0001 
.0882 
.0053 
.0002 

2,960 

1.000  -J-  .2831=3.5 

i  If  receipts  from  an  enterprise  are  used  as  the  measure  of  its  magnitude,  ignore 


16 

This  figure  eliminates  every  other  causal  factor  than  diversity, 
and  hence  may  be  safely  used  in  tabulations  designed  to  bring  out 
the  effect  of  diversity  on  the  efficiency  of  the  farm  business. 

58.  Adjusted  labor  income.  In  the  older  settled  portions  of  the 
country  magnitude  of  business  is  perhaps  the  most  important  factor 
in  the  success  of  the  farmer.  This  means  that,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  it  has  more  influence  on  labor  income  than  any  other  factor 
This  being  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  bring  out  the  effect  of  other 
factors  unless  the  number  of  farm  records  is  sufficiently  large  to 
insure  the  elimination  of  the  effect  of  magnitude  of  business  by  the 
law  of  averages,  or  to  permit  grouping  the  farms  first  on  magnitude 
of  business  and  then  subdividing  each  group  on  the  basis  of  the 
factor  to  be  studied.  In  any  case,  the  law  of  averages  will  not  elimi- 
nate the  effect  of  magnitude  of  business  if  the  factor  to  be  studied 
itself  depends  on  magnitude  of  business.1  This  difficulty  may 
be  obviated  as  follows:  First  group  the  farms  on  the  basis  of  magni- 
tude of  business,  making  the  limits  of  the  groups  as  small  as  possible 
and  still  have  enough  farms  (50  to  100  if  possible)  to  give  a  reliable 
average  for  the  labor  income  in  each  group;  then  express  the  labor 
income  of  each  farm  in  percentage  of  the  average  labor  income  of 
its  size  group.  We  may  call  this  percentage  the  "adjusted  labor 
income."  It  is  a  measure  of  success  in  farming  as  affected  by  fac- 
tors other  than  magnitude  of  business.  Thus  if  the  labor  income 
of  a  50-acre  farm  is  80  per  cent  of  the  average  for  its  group,  and  that 
of  a  125-acre  farm  is  80  per  cent  of  the  average  for  its  group,  these 
two  farms  are  considered  to  be  equally  efficient,  though  the  larger 
farm  may  have  much  the  larger  labor  income. 

This  adjusted  labor  income  should  be  calculated  for  each  farm 
and  recorded  on  the  survey  record  sheet,  or  the  special  factor  card 
if  there  is  one.  It  is  especially  useful  in  dealing  with  factors  which 
are  influenced  by  size  of  farm.  Thus,  in  studying  the  relation 
between  type  of  tenure  and  labor  income,  we  are  confronted  with 
the  difficulty  that  in  some  localities,  especially  in  the  Northern 

1  The  law  of  averages,  which  plays  so  important  a  part  in  the  study  of  farm  man- 
agement survey  data,  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows:  In  cases  where  variations 
from  a  normal  are  just  as  liable  to  be  plus  as  minus,  the  plus  and  minus  variations 
will  cancel  each  other  if  tke  number  of  cases  averaged  is  large. 


17 

States,  tenant  farms  are  usually  somewhat  larger,  on  the  average, 
than  owner  farms,  while  share  tenant  farms  are  larger  than  cash 
tenant  farms.  In  order  to  get  at  the  real  influence  of  type  of  tenure 
we  must  therefore  eliminate  the  effect  of  size  of  farm.  This  may  be 
done  by  using  the  adjusted  labor  income.  If  the  number  of  farms 
in  the  survey  were  large  enough  the  same  thing  could  be  accom- 
plished by  dealing  only  with  farms  of  approximately  the  same  mag- 
nitude of  business.  Again,  the  number  of  productive  work  units 
per  man  varies  with  size  of  farm,  at  least  on  small  farms.  We  can 
eliminate  the  influence  of  size  of  farm  and  study  directly  the  effect 
of  number  of  work  units  per  man  on  labor  income  by  using  the 
adjusted  labor  income.  The  proportion  of  feed  bought  also  depends 
on  size  of  farm;  but  if  we  use  the  adjusted  labor  income  instead 
of  the  actual  labor  income  of  each  farm,  we  are  able  to  study 
the  effect  on  labor  income  of  the  percentage  of  feed  bought. 
Many  other  illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  usefulness  of  this 
adjustment. 

Even  when  the  factor  the  influence  of  which  is  to  be  studied  has 
no  relation  to  size  of  farm,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  effect  ot  per- 
centage of  receipts  from  dairy  products  on  labor  income,  we  must 
depend  on  the  law  of  averages  to  eliminate  the  fluctuations  in 
labor  income  due  to  differences  in  magnitude  of  business.  If  the 
number  of  farms  in  each  group  to  be  averaged  is  quite  large  tl..is 
will  occur,  but  if  the  number  is  not  large  the  elimination  may  not 
occur. 

The  use  of  the  adjusted  labor  income  in  such  cases  removes  this 
difficulty  and  permits!  the  use  of  a  smaller  number  of  farms  in  each 
group  than  would  otherwise  be  permissible.  That  is,  it  renders 
the  work  more  accurate. 

It  is  evident  that  unless  the  survey  includes  several  hundred 
farms  it  is  not  advisable  to  adjust  labor  income  in  this  manner, 
because  there  would  be  too  few  farmd  in  each  size  group  to  give  a 
reliable  average  labor  income  for  each  group.  But  when  the  ad- 
justed labor  income  has  once  been  obtained,  reliable  averages  can 
then  be  obtained  from  smaller  groups  of  farms  than  before,  for  the 
most  important  fluctuation  in  labor  income  has  then  been  elimi- 
nated. 

10952—16 3 


18 

TABLE  I.— List  of  productive  work  units l  per  acre  of  the  various  crops 
and  per  animal  unit  for  the  various  classes  of  live  t  took,  for  Che  ter 
County,  Pa.  The  e  figures  -will  vary  more  or  less  for  different  locali- 
ties. The  figures  used  should  be  based  on  average  local  practice. 

Productive  work  units  per  acre  of  crops:                      Man.  Horse. 

Corn  for  grain 7  6 

Corn  for  silage fi.  5  7 

Potatoes 10  9 

Tobacco 20  7 

Wheat,  oats,  or  other  grain,  oat  hay,  millet,  peas, 

and  other  forage 2  3 

Hay 1  1 

Alfalfa  (two  cuttings) 3  3 

Sweet  corn  ('commercial) 10  9 

Truck  (commercial) 24  9 

Truck  (home  use) 12  4.  5 

Fruit  (commercial  when  sales  amount  to  $25  or 

more  per  acre) 10  5 

Fruit  (home  use) 5  1 

Fruit  (not  bearing) 2.  5  0.  5 

Productive  work  units  per  head  of  live  stock: 

Dairy  cows 17  2.  5 

Daliy  cows  (pure  bred) 20  2.  5 

20  veal  calves 20  1 

10  heifers  and  calves • 30  1 

10  heifers  and  calves  (pure  bred) 40  1 

Ibiffl 7        

20  steers  (for  entire  year) 30  1 

10  colts  or  horses  (not  worked) 60  1 

100  breeding  ewes 50  3 

100  other  sheep 40  3 

10  brood  sows 3!i  5 

50  other  hogs 30  5 

100  hens  or  other  poultry 18  2 

200  chickens  or  other  poultry  (raised) 18  2 

i  A  work  unit  is  an  average  day's  work. 


19 

Productive  work  units  per  $1  of  outside  labor:  Man.  Horse. 

Outside  labor,  man  and  team 0.2  0.4 

Outside  labor,  man  only 0.  4     

Outside  labor,  marketing  (man  and  horse) 0.  2$  0.  2f 

PRINCIPLES  OF  TABULATION. 

The  interpretation  of  farm  management  survey  data  consists  in 
the  main  of  the  discovery  and  measurement  of  causal  relations  be- 
tween the  various  classes  of  facts  contained  in  the  data.  In  re- 
search work  in  general  such  causal  relations  are  studied  by  pro- 
ducing changes  in  one  class  of  phenomena  and  observing  the 
resulting  changes  in  others.  In  farm  management  survey  data  the 
variations  to  be  studied  are  already  at  hand,  the  problem  being  to 
arrange  the  data  in  such  manner  as  to  display  the  variations  of  one 
factor  and  then  note  the  variation  in  others  supposed  to  depend 
in  some  way  on  it. 

A  farm  management  survey  record  consists  of  the  various  items 
constituting  an  analysis  of  the  farm  business.  It  is  the  interde- 
pendence of  these  various  items  that  is  to  be  studied.  The  general 
problem  is  to  find  what  relation  exists  between  the  magnitude  of  the 
various  items  and  the  efficiency  of  the  farming.  Farm  management 
studies  have  shown  that  success  in  farming  depends  largely  on  the 
following  factors:  (1)  Type  of  land  tenure;  (2)  type  of  farming; 
(3)  magnitude  of  business;  and  (4)  the  various  factors  of  efficiency, 
such  as  yield  per  acre,  income  per  cow,  adequacy  and  economy  of 
equipment,  diversity  of  business,  productive  work  units  per  man 
and  per  horse,  etc. 

In  any  particular  case  the  problem  is  to  discover  the  relation  of 
the  above  factors  to  success  in  farming  under  the  conditions  which 
prevail  in  the  locality  to  which  the  data  relate. 

Consideration  of  a  particular  case  will  best  serve  to  show  the 
principles  involved  in  a  study  of  causal  relations.  The  relation 
between  s'  ze  of  farm  and  labor  income  may  be  used  for  this  purpose. 

Two  methods  of  procedure  present  themselves.  First,  we  may 
arrange  the  farms  in  groups  according  to  increasing  size  of  farm 
and  find  the  corresponding  variations  in  the  average  labor  income 


20 


of  each  group;  or,  second,  we  may  arrange  them  in  groups  according 
to  ascending  labor  income  and  find  the  corresponding  variations 
in  the  average  size  of  farm  in  each  of  the  labor  income  groups. 
It  is  highly  important  that  a  proper  decision  be  made  as  to  which 
of  these  methods  to  use.  In  order  to  show  the  difference  in  the 
results  obtained  by  the  two  methods  a  number  of  farms  are  grouped 
in  Table  II- A  according  to  size  of  farm,  while  in  Table  II-B  the 
same  farms  are  grouped  according  to  labor  income. 

TABLE  II-A. — Farms  grouped  by  size,  and  the  resulting  average  labor 
incomes  determined. 


Size  groups. 

20-40 

41-60 

'61-80 

81-100 

101-120 

121+ 

Average  labor  income 

$117 

$235 

$359 

$447 

$592 

$715 

TABLE  II-B. — The  same  farms  grouped  by  labor  income,  and  the 
resulting  average  size  of  farm  determined. 


Labor  income  groups. 


• 

-$1,000 
to 
-$501 

-$500 
to 
0 

$1 
to 

$500 

$501 
to 
$1,000 

$1,001 
to 
$1,500 

$1,501 
to 
$2,000 

$2,001 
up. 

Average  sizes 

114 

56 

,  56 

94 

107 

120 

130 

Table  II-A  shows  a  gradual  and  regular  increase  in  labor  income 
as  size  of  farm  increases.  Table  II-B,  indeed,  shows  some  kind  of 
relation,  but  the  results  are  plainly  distorted  by  the  effect  of  some 
other  factor  or  factors.  Evidently  the  relation  sought  is  more  clearly 
and  simply  portrayed  in  the  first  tabulation  than  in  the  second. 
The  cause  of  the  difference  in  results  in  these  two  tabulations  is  at 
the  bottom  of  all  sound  reasoning  about  farm  management,  data. 
Unless  this  cause  is  clearly  apprehended  serious  errors  are  liable  to 
occur  in  interpreting  such  data. 


21 

CAUSE  OF  THE  IRREGULARITY  IN  TABLE  H-B. 

Labor  income  is  the  combined  result  of  all  the  factors  of  success 
mentioned  a  few  pages  back.  One  of  these  factors  is  magnitude 
of  business,  in  which  the  size  of  the  farm  is  an  element.  Hence, 
in  these  two  tables  we  are  studying  the  relation  between  one  of  the 
elements  of  magnitude  of  business  on  the  one  hand  and  the  com- 
bined effect  of  all  the  factors  of  success  on  the  other. 

In  Table  II-A  the  farms  are  arranged  to  display  the  variations 
in  size  of  farm;  the  last  line  of  the  table  shows  the  resulting  varia- 
tions in  labor  income.  The  question  arises  whether  these  varia- 
tions in  labor  income  are  due  entirely  to  variations  in  size  of  farm. 

We  may  assume  that  variation  in  size  of  farm  causes  variations 
in  labor  income,  but  what  has  become  of  the  influence  on  labor 
income  of  tenure,  type  of  farming,  and  the  various  factors  of  effi- 
ciency that  the  variations  in  the  table  should  be  wholly  due  to  size 
of  farm?  Let  us  study  each  of  these  factors  separately. 

Type  of  tenure. — Since  the  type  of  tenure  is  more  or  less  related 
to  size  of  farm,  when  a  number  of  farms  are  grouped  on  size  the 
various  forms  of  tenure  do  not  distribute  themselves  at  random  in 
the  various  size  groups;  tenant  laborer  farms  will  generally  be 
found  in  the  groups  of  smaller  farms,  share  tenant  farms  in  the 
groups  of  larger  farms,  etc.  Now  the  form  of  tenure  has  some  effect 
on  labor  income.  Hence  variations  in  labor  income  due  to  differ- 
ence in  form  of  tenure  are  not  eliminated,  since  they  are  not  alike 
in  each  size  group.  In  Table  I I-A  this  difficulty  has  been  overcome 
by  using  only  farms  of  the  same  type  of  tenure.  This  is,  in  general, 
the  way  of  getting  around  this  particular  difficulty.  If  desired,  a 
similar  study  can  be  made  of  each  type  of  tenure. 

Type  of  farming. — There  is  more  or  less  tendency  for  small 
farms  to  be  devoted  to  the  more  intensive  types  of  farming  and 
large  farms  to  the  more  extensive.  Also,  the  more  intensive  the 
type,  the  higher  the  labor  income  on  the  average  for  farms  of  similar 
size.  Therefore,  unless  the  farms  in  each  group  are  similar  in 
degree  of  intensiveness,  the  difference  will  tend  to  make  the  labor 
income  higher  in  the  groups  of  small  farms  and  lower  in  the  others. 
This  difficulty  was  here  overcome  by  using  in  both  these  tables  only 
farms  of  approximately  the  same  type.  This  would  not  have  been 


22 

necessary  if  we  had  been  using  "cost  of  operation"  instead  of  "size 
of  farm." 

Factors  of  efficiency. — Let  us  first  consider  yield  of  crops  per 
acre.  Previous  studies  have  shown  that  the  average  yield  per  acre 
of  a  given  crop  is  just  about  the  same  on  farms  of  all  sizes.  This 
being  the  case,  both  high  yields  and  low  yields  will  occur  with 
about  the  same  relative  frequency  in  all  the  size  groups,  so  that  the 
average  yield  will  be  about  the  same  in  each  group.  Hence  the 
average  labor  income  in  the  various  size  groups  will  not  be  affected 
by  variation  in  yield.  The  effect  of  such  variations  is  canceled  by 
the  law  of  averages. 

Approximately  the  same  is  true  of  all  the  other  factors  of  effi- 
ciency, except  in  so  far  as  they  depend  on  size  of  farm,  and  in  the 
latter  case,  what  influence  they  have  on  labor  income  is  in  reality 
due  to  size  of  farm.  Thus  it  costs  more  per  acre  to  equip  a  small 
farm  than  a  large  one,  and  this  makes  the  expense  of  operating  a 
small  farm  relatively  greater  than  that  of  a  large  one.  Hence  labor 
income  is  relatively  smaller  on  small  farms  than  on  large  ones.  But 
this  is  just  the  kind  of  effects  we  are  trying  to  measure.  Table  II-A 
thus  gives  a  clear  presentation  of  the  effect  of  size  of  farm  on  labor 
income. 

In  Table  II-B  the  farms  are  classified  according  to  labor  income 
and  averaged  on  size.  Now  labor  income  is  the  combined  effect  of 
many  causes.  Let  us  see  if  the  various  causes  cancel  out  in  the 
averages  as  did  the  effects  of  these  causes  in  the  previous  table. 

As  previously  stated,  variation  in  intensiveness  of  farming  was 
completely  eliminated  at  the  outset  by  considering  only  farms  that 
were  comparable  in  type,  so  that  we  need  not  condder  thi?  factor 
further.  The  same  is  true  of  difference  in  form  of  tenure. 

When  the  farms  were  grouped  by  size,  factors  of  efficiency 
(yield,  income  per  cow,  etc.)  canceled  out,  because  their  effects 
are  proportional  to  size  of  farm,  and  unusual  gains  and  unusual 
losses  were  brought  together  in  the  same  groups.  But  in  Table 
II-B  they  are  thrown  into  different  elapses,  because  the  unusually 
large  gains,  which  occur  only  on  large  farms,  are  found  in  the 
groups  of  large  labor  incomes,  while  the  unusually  large  losses, 
which  are  also  found  only  on  large  farms,  are  found  in  the  minus 


23 

labor  income  groups.  They  thus  have  no  chance  to  cancel  each 
other.  In  fact  the  largest  minus  labor  income  group  is  made  up 
almost  wholly  of  large  farms,  the  average  of  this  group  being  the 
th-rd  largest  in  the  series.  The  irregularity  in  the  size  averages  of 
Table  II-B  is  thus  due  to  the  fact  that  the  basis  of  sorting  did  not 
eliminate  all  the  causes  other  than  the  one  we  were  investigating. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  Table  II-A  the  basis  of  grouping  is 
a  causal  factor,  that  is,  variation  in  size  of  farms  causes  a  correspond- 
ing variation  in  average  labor  income;  while  in  Table  II-B  the 
basis  of  grouping  is  a  resultant,  or  effect,  in  this  case  of  many  causal 
factors.  Grouping  on  a  cause  gave  a  consistent  result,  because  the 
effects  of  other  causes  could  be  eliminated,  while  grouping  on  an 
effect  gave  a  result  that  is  hard  to  interpret  because  influences  not 
under  investigation  could  not  be  eliminated.  This  divergence  is 
the  usual  result  of  these  two  methods  of  grouping.  The  beginner 
in  farm  management  investigations  should  never  group  his  farms 
on  the  basis  of  an  effect;  the  grouping  should  always  be  on  the 
basis  of  a  cause,  and  the  averaging  is  then  done  on  an  effect. 

When  the  relation  between  a  cause  and  the  combined  effect  of 
several  causes,  including  the  one  in  question,  is  not  complicated 
by  any  causal  relation  of  both  the  cause  and  the  combined  effect 
to  some  other  causal  factor,  the  variation  in  the  averages  of  the 
various  groups  of  a  tabulation  will  be  due  entirely  to  the  variations 
of  the  cause  under  investigation,  and  the  table  will  display  the 
true  effect  of  this  cause. 

If  the  effect  under  consideration  is  not  the  combined  effect  of 
two  or  more  causes,  but  is  solely  the  effect  of  the  one  cause  under 
consideration,  then  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  which  method 
of  grouping  be  used — that  of  Table  II-A  or  that  of  Table  II-B. 
Suppose,  for  instance,  that  size  of  farm  were  the  sole  determining 
factor  in  the  matter  of  labor  income;  in  such  a  case  the  labor  income 
of  every  farm  would  be  directly  proportional  to  its  size,  and  group- 
ing on  either  size  of  farm  or  labor  income  would  throw  exactly  the 
same  farms  into  each  of  the  groups.  But  such  simple  relations 
are  seldom  found  in  farm  management  survey  data. 

To  show  how  the  influence  of  one  causal  factor  may  sometimes 
be  deduced  from  the  combined  effect  of  this  factor  and  another 
which  can  not  be  separated  from  it,  let  us  consider  the  combined 


24 


effect  of  percentage  of  intertilled  crops  and  number  of  animal 
units  per  hundred  acres  of  crops  on  the  crop  index  of  a  number  of 
farms,  as  worked  out  by  Mr.  D.  A.  Brodie,  of  this  office,  in  his 
study  of  the  relation  of  farm  practice  to  soil  fertility. 

Table  III  shows  this  relation  for  a  group  of  farms  in  Chester 
County,  Pa.  A  correlation  exists  here  between  percentage  of 
intertilled  crops  and  number  of  arimal  units  per  hundred  acres 
of  crops,  for  the  reason  that  the  more  heavily  stocked  a  farm  i*  in 
this  locality,  the  larger  its  percentage  of  corn  area.  The  live- 
stock population  is  thus  a  causal  factor  in  the  percentage  area  of 
intertilled  crops. 


TABLE  III.- 


-Influence  of  area  of  intertilled  crops  and  animal  units 
on  crop  yield  in  Chester  County,  Pa. 


Average 

Number  of  farms. 

Per  cent  of  culti- 
vated area  in 
intertilled  crops. 

per  cent 
of  area  in 
intertilled 

Animal 
units  per 
100  acres. 

Crop 
index. 

crops. 

72 

Less  than  25.... 

20  8 

37  6 

96 

58 

25-30 

27  4 

41  2 

100 

54 

30-35 

32.7 

48  4 

105 

37 

35  and  over 

41  4 

53  4 

105 

The  table  shows  that  as  the  percentage  of  intertilled  crops  in- 
creases the  crop  index  increases  up  to  a  ceitain  point,  but  beyond 
this  point  there  is  apparently  a  falling  off.  It  also  shows  that  the  num  - 
ber  of  animal  units  per  hundred  acres  of  crops  increases  regularly 
with  increase  in  percentage  of  tilled  crop  area.  The  farms  were 
here  grouped  on  percentage  of  intertilled  crop  area,  a  resultant 
factor  so  far  as  number  of  animal  units  per  given  area  is  co.tc-crnecl; 
but  no  difficulty  is  thus  introduced  for  the  reason  that  no  other 
causal  relation  exists  to  complicate  matters,  so  that  the  results  are 
practically  the  same  as  if  the  number  of  animal  units  per  hundred 
acres  of  crops  had  been  used  as  the  basis  of  classification. 

If  the  number  of  animals  per  hundred  acres  of  crops  did  not  con- 
tinue proportional  to  percentage  of  tilled  crop  area  this  table  would 
offer  no  conclusive  evidence  as  to  the  action  of  either  of  these  two 


25 


causes  separately;  but  as  it  is  the  results  appear  to  be  significant. 
We  may  assume  that  the  crop  index  would  increase  as  the  amount 
of  manure  used  increases  within  very  wide  limits  if  no  disturbing 
factor  enters.  But  in  this  case  the  maximum  yield  appears  to  be 
reached  at  a  certain  point,  although  the  amount  of  manure  used 
still  increases  beyond  that  point. 

It  is  known  that  summer  tillage  has  some  tendency  to  promote 
oxidation  of  organic  matter  in  the  soil,  and  thus  to  destroy  humus 
and  set  free  nitrates  in  the  soil.  The  oftener  the  land  is  put  into 
a  tilled  crop  the  greater  this  influence  should  be.  Finally  we  reach 
a  point  where  oxidation  is  so  rapid  as  to  reduce  the  amount  of 
organic  matter  in  the  soil  more  rapidly  than  it  is  being  added,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  more  organic  matter  is  added  than  before,  and 
the  crop  index  thus  begins  to  fall.  Unfortunately  the  variation  in 
percentage  of  intertilled  crops  stops  just  at  the  point  where  it  would 
be  most  interesting  to  know  what  the  next  few  terms  of  the  series 
would  be.  However,  we  may  tentatively  conclude  that  when  the 
percentage  of  intertilled  land  increases  beyond  about  37  per  cent 
in  the  locality  in  question  the  tillage  tends  to  lower  the  crop  index, 
while  up  to  that  point  its  influence  is  not  deducible  from  these  data 
because  whatever  influence  tillage  exerts  is  complicated  by  the 
influence  of  intensity  of  stocking.  Presumably  the  two  influences 
are  similar  up  to  37  per  cent  of  tilled  crop  area. 

Fortunately,  a  survey  of  farms  on  the  black  prairie  lands  of 
Illinois  supplies  the  missing  terms  of  the  series  of  crop  index  aver- 
ages in  Table  III.  The  data  for  the  Illinois  farms  are  given  in 
Table  IV. 

TABLE  IV. — Influence  of  area  of  intertilled  crops  and  animal  units 
on  crop  yield  in  Marshall  silt  loom — Illinois. 


Number  of  farms. 

Per  cent  of  culti- 
vated area  in  corn. 

Average 
per  cent. 

Animal 
units  per 
100  acres. 

Crop 
index. 

75... 

Less  than  37.5  .  . 

28.4 

19.3 

102 

72  

82.. 

37.6-48.9  
49-59  9 

43.3 
53  9 

18.1 
17  7 

103 
100 

74  

60  and  over  . 

73.6 

15.8 

93 

26 

The  small  size  of  the  Pennsylvania  farms  makes  rather  intensive 
farming  necessary  there,  so  that  the  large  herds  of  dairy  cows  kept 
must  be  fed  mainly  from  field  crops.  As  corn  produces  more  feed 
per  acre  than  any  other  crop  commonly  grown  in  that  region,  the 
acreage  of  corn  increases  as  the  live  stock  increase  in  numbers.  In 
the  Illinois  locality,  on  the  other  hand,  the  area  of  corn  increases 
as  live  stock  decrease  in  numbers,  the  corn  being  grown  for  sale. 
It  is  also  important  to  notice  that  the  variation  in  intensity  of 
stocking  is  very  slight  in  Illinois  in  the  groups  based  on  tilled  crop 
area,  so  that  difference  in  the  amount  of  manure  available  has  less 
influence  here  than  in  Table  III.  In  the  first  two  columns  of 
Table  IV  we  find  the  crop  index  increasing  and  the  intensity  of 
stocking  slightly  on  the  decrease  as  the  tilled  crop  area  increases. 
Beyond  a  point  between  28.4  and  43.3  per  cent  of  tilled  area  both 
decrease  as  tilled  crop  area  increases.  In  this  case  the  influence 
of  tillage  seems  to  be  more  important  than  that  of  the  animals  kept 
for  the  crop  index  increases  in  spite  of  decreasing  live  stock  up  to 
the  point  at  which  we  may  assume  that  tillage  becomes  excessive, 
beyond  which  humus  appears  to  be  burned  up  too  fast  and  the  crop 
index  falls  off. 

Apparently  in  both  these  tables  the  optimum  percentage  of  in- 
tertilled crops  is  about  the  same,  and  is  in  the  vicinity  of  35  to  40 
per  cent. 

In  the  above  illustration  we  are  able  to  evaluate  the  factor  of 
tillage  although  its  results  are  mixed  up  with  the  results  of  varia- 
tion in  the  amount  of  available  manure,  for  the  reasons  (1)  that  the 
effect  of  the  manure  is  known  in  advance  and  can  thus  be  dis- 
counted; (2)  the  effect  of  the  two  factors  is  not  the  same  through- 
out the  series  of  averages.  The  same  result  could  be  arrived  at 
by  comparing  only  farms  with  the  same  intensity  of  stocking,  but 
on  account  of  the  relation  between  number  of  animals  and  area  of 
corn  it  would  require  a  very  large  number  of  farms  to  render  this 
possible. 

Recapitulation. — In  studying  the  relation  between  two  factors, 
the  variation  of  one  of  which  is  supposed  to  be  a  direct  cause  of 
variations  in  the  other,  the  farms  should  always  be  grouped  on  the 
basis  of  the  causal  factor  and  each  group  averaged  on  the  basis  of 
the  resultant  factor.  If  each  of  two  factors  bears  a  causal  relation 


27 

to  a  given  resultant,  while  at  the  same  time  one  of  them  bears  a 
causal  relation  to  the  other,  unless  the  effect  of  one  of  them  is 
entirely  known  it  is  necessary  to  devise  some  means  of  eliminating 
the  effect  of  one  of  them  before  the  effect  of  the  other  can  be  deter- 
mined. When  the  number  of  farms  is  sufficiently  large  the  effect 
of  one  of  two  related  causal  factors  may  sometimes  be  eliminated 
by  limiting  the  investigation  to  farms  on  which  there  is  little  or 
no  variation  in  that  factor.  Thus,  in  studying  the  relation  of  size 
of  farm  to  labor  income,  the  confusing  influence  of  size  of  farm  on 
intensity  of  the  type  of  farming  may  be  eliminated  by  confining 
the  study  to  types  of  farming  comparable  in  intensiveness. 

CLASSIFICATION  BY  TENURE. 

Before  undertaking  comparative  studies  of  a  group  of  farms  they 
must  be  separated  into  classes  in  which  all  farms  in  each  class  are 
comparable.  The  first  separation  should  be  based  on  tenure,  and 
may  include  the  following  classes: 

1.  Plantations  (to  be  considered  elsewhere). 

2.  Manager  farms;  those  operated  by  a  hired  manager. 

3.  Working  owner  farms;  those  operated  by  owners  who  take 
the  part  of  a  working  manager  without  salary. 

4.  Nonworking  owner  farms;  those  operated  by  owners  who  direct 
but  take  no  part  in  the  work  of  the  farm. 

5.  Owner  and  landlord  farms;  those,  part  of  which  is  operated  by 
the  owner,  the  remainder  being  rented  out. 

6.  Owner  and  tenant  farms;  those  operated  as  in  (3),  but  of  which 
the  operator  owns  only  part  of  the  land,  holding  the  remainder 
as  a  tenant. 

7.  Cash  tenant  farms;  farms  rented  for  cash  and  operated  by 
the  tenant  as  a  working  manager  without  salary,  the  working 
capital  being  furnished  by  the  tenant. 

8.  Share  tenant  farms;  those  operated  as  in  (7),  but  with  rent 
consisting  of  a  share  of  the  proceeds. 

9.  Tenant  laborer  (or  cropper)  farms;  tenant  farms  on  which  the 
tenant  furnishes  little  or  none  of  the  working  capital. 

10.  Combined  tenant  farms;  two  or  more  farms  operated  by  one 
tenant,  but  rented  from  different  landlords,  or  on  a  different  basis. 


28 

The  above  list  is  only  suggestive.  Various  modifications  of 
these  classes  occur.  The  classification  used  should  conform  to 
the  facts  concerning  the  farms  to  be  classified. 

In  certain  kinds  of  tabulation  all  the  foregoing  classes,  with  the 
exception  of  plantations,  may  be  disregarded  if  each  farm  is  first 
reduced  to  the  basis  of  class  3.  This  may  be  done  as  follows: 

Class  2.  Manager  farms.  Deduct  from  expenses,  and  add  to 
farm  income  and  labor  income,  the  salary  of  the  manager.  This 
applies  whether  the  manager  takes  part  in  the  farm  work  or  merely 
directs  it. 

Class  4.  Networking  owner  farms.  Deduct  from  expenses,  and 
add  to  farm  income  and  labor  income,  the  wages  of  one  man  for 
the  part  of  the  year  when  hired  labor  is  employed. 

Class  5.  Owner  and  landlord  farms.  Eliminate  from  the  invest- 
ment the  portion  of  the  farm  rented  out,  and  eliminate  from  the 
records  all  items  relating  to  this  portion  of  the  farm.  This  includes 
a  proportionate  share  of  taxes  and  other  general  farm  expenses  in 
which  the  land  rented  out  should  share  and  all  receipts  from  and 
expenses  for  this  part  of  the  farm. 

Classes  6-10.  Tenant  farms  of  all  kinds.  Consider  landlord  and 
tenant  as  one  person,  and  eliminate  all  transactions  between  them. 

The  above  reductions  are  necessary  only  in  tabulations  that 
involve  items  that  would  be  changed  in  making  the  reduction. 

TABULATIONS  SUGGESTED. 

The  following  list  of  tabulations  is  suggested  as  a  means  of  bring- 
ing out  the  relations  between  the  various  elements  of  farm  manage- 
ment survey  data  and  of  showing  the  application  of  farm  manage- 
ment principles  to  the  agriculture  of  the  locality  in  which  the 
survey  is  made.  The  list  is  merely  suggestive;  in  many  cases  some 
of  the  tables  will  give  no  significant  result,  and  often  other  tabu- 
lations will  be  required. 

In  addition  to  the  averages  noted  in  the  list  of  tabulations  which 
follow  (right-hand  column),  each  tabulation  should  show: 

A.  The  number  of  farms  in  each  group  (and  also  in  each  sub- 
group if  the  main  groups  are  further  subdivided). 


29 

B.  Where  the  basis  of  grouping  is  quantitative  (as  crop  area, 
number  of  animal  units,  etc.)  and  not  qualitative  (as  types  of 
tenure,  type  of  farming,  etc.),  the  average  of  each  group  (and  sub- 
group if  any)  for  the  basis  of  grouping  should  be  given.     Thus,  if 
the  farms  are  divided  into  groups  based  on  number  of  animal  units 
per  100  acres  of  crop,  the  average  number  of  animal  units  per  100 
acres  of  crops  in  each  group  should  be  given. 

C.  A  summary  of  all  the  columns  or  lines,  as  the  case  may  be 
(both  columns  and  lines  if  each  group  is  divided  into  subgroups). 

In  dividing  farms  into  groups  on  the  basis  of  a  quantitative 
factor,  as  crop  area,  percentage  of  income  from  poultry,  etc.,  where 
possible  make  the  size  limits  of  the  various  groups  such  as  to  give 
a  sufficient  number  of  farms  in  each  group  to  give  a  reliable  average, 
at  least  in  most  of  the  groups  (all  groups  if  practicable  to  do  so). 

When  the  farms  have  been  sorted  on  any  factor,  the  calculations 
should  be  made  for  all  the  tables  requiring  this  same  sorting.  The 
various  groupings  to  be  made,  with  the  numbers  of  the  tabulations 
(see  pp.  30  to  40)  required  in  each,  are  as  follows: 

1.  Tabulations    requiring   no    sorting   into    groups:    V,1  XIII,1 
XXXI,  LXXI,  LXXIII,  LXXIV,  LXXV. 

2.  Types  of  tenure:  I,  III,  IV,  VI,  VII,  XIV,  XX,  XXI,  XXIII, 
XXIV,  LXI,  LXVII,  LXIX. 

3.  Size  of  farm:  II. 

4.  Crop  area  equivalent:  VIII,  IX,  XV,  XXII,  XXV,  XXVI, 
XXXVI,    XXXVII,    XXXVIII,    XXXIX,    XL,    XLI,    XLII, 
XLV,  XLVI,  XLVII,  XLVIII,  XLIX,  LVI,  LXII,  LXVIII. 

5.  Types  of  farming:  X,  XI,  XVII,  XVIII,  XXXII,  XXXIV, 
L,  LI,  LII,  LIII,  LXVI,  LXX. 

6.  Percentage  of  crop  area  devoted  to  each  crop:  XII,  XXVII. 

7.  Percentage  of  animal  units  of  each  kind:  XIX. 

8.  Percentage  of  receipts  from  each  source:  XXVIII. 

9.  Types  of  dairying — exclusive:  XXIX. 

10.  Types  of  dairying — inclusive:  XXX. 

11.  Crop  acres  per  animal  unit:  XXXIII. 

1  Tabulations  V  and  XIII  may  be  made  by  summarizing  the  results  of  other 
tabulations,  as  noted  later. 


30 


12.  Magnitude  of  business:  XXXV. 

13.  Productive  work  units  per  man:  XLIII,  LX. 

14.  Crop  area  per  farm:  XLIV. 

15.  Animal  units  per  100  acres  of  crops:  XVI,  LIV,  LXXII. 

16.  Percentage  of  intertilled  crops:  LV. 

17.  Crop  index:  LVII,  LIX. 

18.  Income  per  cow:  LVIII. 

19.  Diversity  index:  LXIII. 

20.  Percentage  of  receipts  from  crops:  LXIV. 

21.  Rotations  followed:  LXV. 

Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

PRELIMINARY 
TABULATIONS. 

I 

II 

Types  of  tenure... 
Size  of  farms  

Size  of  farms,  tillable  area,  crop 
area,    tillable    pasture    area, 
other  pasture  area,  woodland, 
waste  land,  value  of  real  estate 
per  acre,  per  cent  of  crop  and 
pasture  area  in  pasture. 
Same  as  in  Table  I. 

III 
IV 

Types  of  tenure... 
do  

Labor  income  and  adjusted  la- 
bor income  of  farm  as  a  whole; 
of  tenant;  per  cent  over  $1,000. 
(For  farm  as  a  whole,  reduce 
to  basis  of  working  owner.) 
Owner  farms;  per  cent  of  in- 
come on  investment  (see  cal- 
culation 46.  p.   11).    Tenant 
farms;  landlord's  per  cent  in- 
come on  investment;  tenant's 
per  cent  income  on  invest- 
ment.   (See    calculation    47. 
P.  ID 

31 


Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  inform 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

TYPES  OF  FARM-    , 

V 

Farms  of  all  sizes 

Per  cent  of  total  crop  area  de- 

ING. 

and  tenures;  no 
division    into 
groups. 

voted  to  each  crop.    This  may 
be  obtained  by  summarizing 
Table  VI  or  Table  VII.    Simi- 

lar data  from  recent  censuses 

to  show  whether  the  survey 

data  is  representative  of  the 

country    as    a    whole    and 

whether  each  crop  is  gaming 

or   losing   in   importance  or 

merely  holding  its  own. 

VI 

Types  of  tenure... 

Acres  of  each  crop  and  of  pas- 

ture; per  farm  reporting  and 

per  farm,  all  farms. 

VII 

do  

Percentage  of  crop  area  devoted 

to  each  crop,  per  farm  report- 
ing, per  farm,  all  farms.    Per- 

VIII 

Magnitude  of  busi- 

centage pasture  area  is  of  crop 
and  pasture  area. 
Same  as  in  VI. 

ness. 

IX 

....  do  

Same  as  in  VII. 

X 

Types  of  farming, 

Acres  of  each  crop  per  farm. 

if  there  are 
marked    differ- 

ences in  type. 

XI 

....  do  

Percentage  of  crop  area  devoted 

to  each  crop. 

XII 

Percentage  of  crop 

Number  of  farms  in  each  per- 

area devoted  to 

centage  group.    This  may  also 

each  crop.    Re- 

be displayed  in  a  dot  chart, 

group  for  each 

each  dot  representing  the  per- 

crop and  devote 

centage  of  area  devoted  to  a 

one  line  of  table 

particular  crop  on  one  farm. 

to    each    crop. 
Make  percentage 
classes   of  suit- 
able size  to  dis- 

This table  (or  chart)  shows  the 
variations  in  percentage  area 
of  each  crop.    It  may  be  con- 
fined to  only  one  or  two  lead- 

play true  char- 

ing  types   of   tenure.    Sum- 

acter  of   varia- 

mary columns  should  be  given 

tion  in  percent- 

showing number  of  farms  hav- 

age area  of  each 
crop.   Unimpor- 

ing 1-100,  20-100,  and  40-100 
per  cent  of  their  area  devoted 

tant    crops    re- 

to each  crop. 

quire  small  per- 
centage classes. 

32 


Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

TYPES  OF  FARM- 
ING— COntd. 

Live  stock   .  .  . 

XIII 

XIV 
XV 

XVI 

Farms  of  all  sizes 
and  tenures;  no 
division       into 
groups. 

Types  of  tenure  .  .  . 

Magnitude  of  busi- 
ness. 

Animal  units  per 
100  acres  of  crops 

Number  of  animals  of  each  class 
per  farm;   same  reduced   to 
animal  units;  the  latter  re- 
duced to  percentage  of  total 
animal  units  per  farm;  similar 
census  data  (number  of  ani- 
mals only)  from  several  recent 
censuses;  may  be  obtained  by 
summarizing  Table  XIV. 
Same  as  first  three  columns  of 
XIII. 
Percentage  of  animal  units  for 
each  kind  of  animal;  this  may 
also  be  shown  by  dot  chart. 
(See  XII.) 
Percentage  area  of  each  crop; 
also  percentage  of  crop  and 

XVII 
XVIII 

Type  of  farming, 
if  of  importance. 
do             ... 

pasture  area  in  pasture. 
Number  of  animals  of  each  kind 
per  farm. 
Percentage  of  animal  units  of 

XIX 

XX 
XXI 

Percentage  of  ani- 
mal units  of  each 
kind  in  total  per 
farm.  (See  XII.) 
Types  of  tenure... 

do  

each  kind  per  farm 
Number  of  farms  in  each  per- 
centage group. 

Crop  acres  and  pasture  acres  per 
animal  unit. 
Crop  acres  and  pasture  acres  per 

XXII 

XXIII 
XXIV 

Magnitude  of  busi- 
ness. 

Types  of  tenure... 
do  

dairy  cow. 
Number  of  animal  units  of  each 
kind  per  100  acres  of  crops  per 
farm. 
Actual  income  from  each  enter- 
prise per  farm. 
Percentage  of  income  from  each 

Sources    of   in- 
come. 

XXV 
XXVI 

Magnitude  of  busi- 
ness. 

do     

enterprise  (and  census  data). 
Same  as  XXIII.    May  tabulate 
each  tenure  separately  or  alt 
together  or  only  leading  ten- 
ure.   Graph  for  all  sizes. 
Same  as  XXIV.    (See  note  on 

i  XXVII 

Percentage  of  crop 
area  devoted  to 
corn.   (Use  only 
farms   of    com- 
parable types  of 
farming.) 

tenure  under  XXV.) 
Labor  income  and  adjusted  la- 
bor income.    If  different  ten- 
ures are  used,  reduce  to  bases 
of  working  owners. 

i  Prepare  tables  like  XXVII  for  each  crop,  and  like  XXVIII  for  each  source  of 
income. 


33 


Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

TYPES  OF  FABM- 

iXXVIII 

Percentage  of  re- 

Same as  XXVII. 

ING  —  contd. 

ceipts  from  sale 

of    corn.     (See 

XXVII.) 

XXIX 

Types  of  dairy  ing, 
each    group    to 
consist  only  of 

Size  of  farm;  distance  to  mar- 
ket point;  number  of  cows; 
labor  income   and   adjusted 

farms       selling 
only  the  one  one 

labor  income.    Percentage  of 
total    dairy   farms    in    each 

XXX 

dairy  product. 
Types  of  dairying, 

group. 
Same  as  in  last.    (In  this  table 

each    group    to 
consist    of    all 

the  per  cents  will  usually  add 
up   over   100   because   some 

farms  selling  a 

farms   occur   in   2   or   more 

given   product. 
This  wffl  throw 

groups.) 

some  farms  into 

more  than  one 

class. 

XXXI 

List  of  enterprises,  with  conditions  favorable  and  un- 
favorable to  each.  (See  Table  XXV,  Dept.  Bui.  341.) 

Sources  of  income 

XXXII 

Type  of  farming. 
(Use  only  farms 

Size  of  farm. 

of  same  tenure 

„  in  one  table.    If 

S6v6r3>l    tortures 
are    important, 

tabulate     each 

separately.) 

xxxni 

Crop     acres    per 
animal  unit  (all 

Percentage  of  productive  work 
units  on  crops. 

kinds  together). 

Subdivide  each 

group  on  basis 

of  percentage  of 

dairy    cows    in 

total    animal 

units.   Run  pri- 

mary groups  at 

left  margin;  sec- 

ondary  as   col- 

umn headings. 

XXXIV 

Type  of  farming... 

Same  as  XXXIII. 

i  Prepare  tables  like  XXVII  for  each  crop,  and  like  XXVIII  for  each  source  of 
income. 


34 


Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

MAGNITUDE  OF 
BUSINESS. 

XXXV 

Magnitude  of  bus- 
iness. 

Labor     income.    (If    different 
tenures  are  combined,  reduce 

all  to  basis  of  working  own- 

(See Prelim- 
inary   calcula- 

ers.)    Graph—  Magnitude     as 
horizontal  measure,  labor  in- 

lation No.  55.) 

come  vertical  measure;  this 

graph  is  a  line  or  curve,  rising 
as  magnitude  increases.   (See 

• 

fig.   4,    Dept.   Bui.   No.   41.) 

Graph—  Showing  labor  income 

of  each  farm,  the  farms  ar- 

ranged in  order  according  to 

magnitude  of  business.    (See 

XXXVI 

....  do  

fig.  9,  Dept.  Bui.  341.) 
Productive    man   work    units; 

crop  acres  per  man;  same  per 

work  horse;  cost  of  total  man 

labor  per  crop  acre;  monthly 

wages;  work  horses  per  man; 

value  of  machinery  per  crop 

acre. 

XXXVII 

Magnitude  of  bus- 

Two columns  for  each  tenure; 

iness.       Subdi- 

one for  cost  of  dwelling  and 

vided  by  tenure. 

the  other  for  cost  of  other  farm 

buildings. 

xxxvm 

Magnitude  of  bus- 
iness; using  only 

Same  as  XXXVII,  expressing 
cost  in  terms  of  farm  income. 

XXXIX 

working  owners. 
Magnitude  of  bus- 
iness; using  only 

Same  as  XXXVII,  expressing 
cost  in  terms  of  tenants'  farm 

cash  tenants. 

income. 

XL 

Magnitude  of  bus- 

Do. 

iness;  using  only 

share  tenants 

with    working 

capital. 

XLI 

Magnitude  of  bus- 

Do. 

iness;  using  only 

tenant  laborers 

(croppers). 

XLII 

Magnitude  of  bus- 
iness. 

Cost  of  depreciation,  interest, 
and    repairs    on    buildings, 

fences,  and  machinery;  totals 

XLIII 

Number    of  pro- 

per farm  and  per  crop  acre. 
Labor  income.    Graph  for  same. 

ductive      work 

(See  XXV.) 

units  (man)  per 

farm. 

XLIV 

Crop  area  per  farm. 

Give  percentage  of  farms  in  each 
size  group  (based  on  crop  area) 
owning  each  of  principal  items 
of  field  machinery.    Use  list 

of  items  as  left  margin;  crop 

area  groups  as  column  head- 
ings. 

35 


Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

MAGNITUDE  OF 

BUSINESS—  con. 

XLV 

Magnitude  of  busi- 
aess.  (Use  work- 
ing owner  farms, 
or  other  leading 

Capital,  in  dollars;  percentage  of 
capital  invested  in  land,  dwell- 
ing, other  buildings,  imple- 
ments  and   machinery,  live 

tenure,  as  basis 

stoc>c,  feed,  and  supplies,  and 

of  grouping  oa 
size.    Other  ten- 

cash to  run  the  farm:  percent- 
age of  working  capital;  work- 

ures     may     be 
added    without 

iag  capital  per  acre  of  crop 
area  equivalent. 

grouping  on 

size). 

XLVI 

Magnitude  of  busi 

Percentage  of  income  on  land- 

ness (cash  ten- 

lord's capital. 

ants  only). 

XLVII 

Magnitude  of  busi- 

Do. 

ness;  using  share 

tenants  with 

XLVIII 

working  capital. 
Magnitude  of  busi- 

Do. 

ness;  using  ten- 

ant laoorers 

XLIX 

Magritude  of  busi- 

Percentage  of  farms   of  each 

ness. 

tenure  in  each  size  group. 

L 

Type  of  farming, 

Labor  income.    This  tabulation 

subdivided    on 
magnitude      of 

is  not  feasible  unless  large  num- 
bers of    farms  are  available. 

business. 

With  smaller  numbers,  omit 

the  subdivisions  on  size  and 

use  labor  income  adjusted  for 

magnitude  of  business. 

LI 

do... 

Total  capital. 

LII 

...do.... 

Working  capital  per  acre. 

LIII 

....  do..  . 

Total  labor. 

QUALITY  OF  BUSI- 
NESS. 

LIV 

Intensity  of  stock- 
ing (animal  units 

Crop  index;  yield  per  acre  of 
each  crop. 

per  100  acres  of 

crops.     If     per- 

centage   of   pas- 

ture     area      is 

highly  variable, 

use     crop     area 

equivalent). 

LV 

Percentage  of  inter- 

Do. 

tilled  crops. 

LVI 

Magnitude  of  busi- 

Do. 

LVII 

ness. 
Crop  index       .... 

Labor  income.    (Use   adjusted 

labor  income  If  number  of 

farms  is  small.) 

LVIII 

Income  per  cow... 

Do. 

36 

Tabulations  designed  to  bring  out  the  significant  relations  in  farm 
management  survey  data — Continued. 


Tabula- 
tion No. 

Basis  of  grouping. 

Basis  of  averages. 

QUALITY  OF  BUSI- 

LIX 

Crop  index;  subdi- 

Labor income.     (Use  adjusted 

NESS—  contd. 

vide  on  income 

labor  incomes  if  number   of 

LX 

per  cow. 
Productive  work 

farms  is  small.) 
Size  of  farm;  productive  work 

units  per  man. 

units  per  horse;  labor  income; 

adjusted    labor    income;    re- 

ceipts per  cow;  wages  of  opera- 
tor per  day  (labor  income  di- 

vided   by   productive    work 

units  per  man);  labor  income 

per  day  for  300-day  year  (la- 
bor income  divided  by  300). 

LXI 

Types  of  tenure... 

Yield  per  acre,  each  crop;  crop 

index. 

FABM  ORGANIZA- 

LXH 

Magnitude  of  bus- 

Diversity index. 

TION. 

iness. 

LXIII 

Diversity  index... 

Labor  income;  adjusted  labor 

income. 

LXIV 

Percentage  of  re- 

Do. 

LXV 

ceipts  from  crops. 
Tabulate  the  princ 

ipal  rotations,  record  number  of 

farms  using  each,  average  size  of  these  farms,  and 

numbers  of  animal  units  of  each  kind  per  100  acres 

of  crops. 

LXVI 

Types  of  farming.  .    Percentage  of  receipts  required 
for  operating  expenses. 

LXVII 

Types  of  tenure  ...         Do. 

Lxvni 

Magnitude  of  bus-     Percentage  of  expenses  for  each 

iness.                        item  of  expense. 

LXIX 

Types  of  tenure...;         Do. 

LXX 
LXXI 

Types  of  farming.  .  <         Do. 
Cost  of  feed  per  animal  unit  and  income  per  animal 
unit  other  than  v  ork  horses.     (See   Table    V, 

attached,  for  illustration.) 

LXXII 

Value   of  manure   per   animal  unit.    (See   Table 

VI,  attached,  for  illustration.) 

LXXIII 

Acres  of  feedable  crops  and  of  pasture  per  animal 

unit.    (See  Table  VII,  attached,  for  illustration. 

LXXIV 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  dairy  cows.    (See  Table 

VIII,  attached,  for  illustration.) 

LXXV 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  farm  work  horses.    (See 

Table  IX,  attached,  for  illustration.) 

37 


MODELS  FOR  TABULATIONS  LXXI  TO  LXXV. 

TABLE  V  (Tabulation  LXXI). — Feed  cost  per  animal  unit  on  378 
farms  operated  by  owners;  Chester  County,  Pa. 


' 

. 

Amount 
raised. 

Amount 
sold. 

Amount 
con- 
sumed. 

Trice. 

Value 
of  feed 
con- 
sumed. 

.    „ 

Corn  for  grain  and  other  

Bushels. 
265,  313 

Bushels. 

25.  788 

Bushels. 
239,  525 

Bushel. 
$0.75 

$179,644 

Silage  

Tons. 

6,678 

Tons. 

Tons. 

6,678 

Ton. 
4.00 

26,  712 

Hay 

12,  481 

5,642 

6,839 

18.00 

123  102 

Oats     .  . 

Bushels. 
54,360 

Bushels. 
2,  725 

Bushels. 
51,635 

Bushel. 
0.50 

25.  818 

Rye 

224 

52 

172 

.80 

138 

Barley  

229 

229 

.75 

172 

Oats  and  speltz 

160 

160 

.60 

96 

Straw  1  

Tons. 
5,000 

Tons. 
900 

Tons. 
4,100 

Ton. 
4.00 

16.400 

Stover1  

6,000 

fi,OJOO 

5.00 

30,OOC 

I 

i  Yield  estimated. 

Total  value  of  farm  feed 5402, 082. 00 

Increase  in  inventory  value 36, 061. 00 

Total  value  of  farm  feed  consumed 366/021. 00 

Total  value  of  farm  feed  consumed  per  animal  unit 49. 79 

Value  of  feed  purchased. ....... .'. . . . . . . . . 74, 304. 00 

Value  of  feed  purchased  per  animal  unit 10. 11 

Total  feed  cost i........ ; 440, 325. 00 

Total  feed  cost  per  animal  unit. .' 59. 90 


38 


TABLE  VI  (Tabulation  LXXII). —  Value  of  manure  per  animal  unit 
determined  by  comparing  two  groups  of  Chester  County,  Pa., 
farms. 

{The  first  group  contains  94  farms  (one-fourth  of  entire  number)  having  the  least 
number  of  animal  units  per  100  acres  of  crops  (average,  20.36).  The  second  group 
includes  94  farms  having  the  highest  number  of  animal  units  per  100  acres  of  crops 
(average,  56.85).  Difference,  36.49  animal  units— 378  owner  farms,  Chester 
County,  Pa.] 


Crops. 

Corn. 

Potatoes. 

Wheat. 

Oats. 

Hay. 

Acres  per  100  acres  of  crops  *•  
Average  yield  per  acre  (bushels  or 
tons): 
Lowest  group  94  farms 

23.00 
59  98 

6.21 
7Q  ig 

18.8 
23  90 

6.6 
37  86 

45.4 
1  22 

Highest  group,  94  farms 

71.83 

83  09 

25.56 

43  67 

1.55 

Increase  in  yield  per  acre  (bushels  or 
tons) 

11.85 

3.91 

1.66 

5.81 

.33 

Increase  in  production  per  100  acres 
of  crops  (bushels  or  tons). 

272  55 

24.24 

31.21 

38.35 

14.98 

Prices  ! 

$0  80 

$1  04 

$0  92 

$0  55 

$22  12 

Value  of  increased  production  per 
100  acres  of  crops 

$218  04 

$25  21 

$28  71 

$21  09 

$331  36 

*  Areas  and  prices  are  the  averages  for  the  entire  378  farms  operated  by  their 
owners.  These  are  used  hi  order  to  eliminate  factors  other  than  the  quantity  of 
manure  available.  The  crop  areas  given  here  are  per  100  acres  of  the  five  crops  men- 
tioned. 

Total  of  last  line 624.41 

Excess  of  fertilizer  used  by  second  group,  per  100  acres  of  all  crops 48. 00 

Increase  due  to  36.49  animal  units 576. 41 

Increase  due  to  one  animal  unit .    15. 80 


39 


TABLE  VII   (Tabulation   LXIII).— Acres    of  feedable  crops  and 
pasture  per  animal  unit — 378  owner  farms,  Chester  County,  Pa. 


Acreage  of  farms. 

40  or 
less. 

41-60 

61-80 

81-100 

101-120 

121-160 

Over 
160. 

All 
farms. 

Number  of  farms  
Number   of  animal 
units  per  farm  

Corn  for  grain  

54 

7.6 

61 
12.5 

60 
16.6 

68 
20.2 

52 
24.4 

61 
26.7 

22 
41.8 

378 
19.4 

Per  animal  unit. 

I  0.60 

.13 

.99 

0.59 

.14 
1.05 

0.60 

.18 
1.22 

0.62 

.20 
1.26 

0.63 

.17 
1.15 

0.62 

.19 
1.40 

0.68 

.22 
1.26 

0.62 

.18 
1.23 

Corn  for  silage 

Other  corn  

Oats      and      other 
grains  for  feed 

A.U  hay  

Total  feed  crops. 
Pasture1  

1.72 

.38 

1.78 
1.08 

2.00 
1.10 

2.08 
1.08 

1.95 
1.23 

2.21 
1.27 

2.16 
1.41 

2.03 
1.18 

Grand  total  
Value  of  farm  feeds 
sold 

2.60 
$13.43 
12.75 

2.86 
$15.37 
8.85 

3.10 
$20.55 
9.61 

3.16 
$20.  80 
9.36 

3.18 
$17.  94 
11.10 

3.48 
$25.41 
8.34 

3.57 
$30.25 
13.37 

3.21 
$21.08 
10.11 

Value  of  feed  pur- 
chased..   . 

1  Does  not  include  work  horses. 


40 


TABLE  VIII  (Tabulation  LXXIV). — Showing  depreciation  of  dairy 
cows — 378  farms  operated  by  owners,  Pennsylvania. 


Number. 

Value 
per  head. 

Total 
value. 

First  Inventory 

4  196 

$56  10 

$235  400 

Cows  purchased  

589 

63.84 

37'  605 

Cows  raised                    .... 

345 

63  84 

22  025 

Total                    

295  030 

Second  inventory     

4  164 

57.01 

237  430 

Cows  sold  and  slaughtered 

895 

37  36 

33  437 

Total 

270  867 

Difference 

24  163 

Increase  at  end  of  year  in  value  

.91 

3  789 

Total  loss 

27  952 

Average  investment  

236'  415 

Kate  of  depreciation                             per  cent 

11  82 

TABLE  IX  (Tabulation  LXXV). — Showing  depreciation  of  horses—. 
378  farms  operated  by  owners,  Chester  County,  Pa. 


Number. 

Value 
per  head. 

Total 
value. 

Value  at  first  inventory          .... 

1  369 

$135  98 

$186  183 

Value  of  horses  purchased  

103 

157.  36 

16  208 

Value  of  horses  raised 

8 

157.  36 

1  259 

Total                       

203  650 

Value  at  second  inventory  

1  367 

138.  95 

189  947 

Value  of  horses  sold 

64 

128  02 

8  193 

Total                   

198  140 

Loss  

5  510 

Increase  in  price  during  year 

2.97 

4  060 

Total  loss    

9  570 

Average  investment 

188  065 

Rate  of  depreciation  per  cent.  . 

5.09 

o 


